MA 


L 


) 


TER  NEGA  TIVE 


\Y>.  93-81202-13 


MICROFILMED  1993 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  L 


1_      V/-1 


RIES/NEW  YORK 


as  part  of  the  ^^ 

"Foundations  of  Western  Civilization  Preservation  Project 


Funded  by  the 
NATIONAL  ENDOWMENT  FOR  THE  HUMANITIES 


Reproductions  may  not  be  made  without  permission  from 

Columbia  University  Library 


COPYRIGHT  STATEMENT 


The  copyright  law  of  t 


I  r 


¥' 


-.  tr 


States  -  Title  1 7,  United 


States  Code  -  rcncerns  the  ma*-.! 


ng  of  pliotocopies  or 


other  reproducTiORs  o-  copv''gs^*«'^  material. 

Under  certain  conditions  specified  in  tlie  law,  libraries  and 

archives  are  authorized  to  furnish  a  photocopv  or  other 

photocopy  or  other  reproduction  is  not  tc  be      sen  ^ "  any 
purpose  other  than  private  study  scholars- 
research."  If  a  user  malces  a  request  for,  o    are 
photocopv  or  reproduction  for  purposes  n  excess 
use,"  that'user  may  be  liable  ^o-  coovigr :  sA:,.  ce 


1^' 


a 
tair 


This  institution  reserves  the  right  to  refuse  to  accept 
copy  order  if,  in  its  judgement,  fulfiliment  of  the  ore 

wouid  involve  violation  of  tne  copyngh?  iaw. 


■^ 


'   f 

# 


1® 


^ 


3f     t 


:¥i=tji* 


3 


VILLE 


^-y-^ 


.,.^.«,    .^ 


I' 


-  -'"--■H.I**'  -%.-. 


.-[■ 


/I 


i 


*9 


:^ 


.'^.pt*  **"*";< 


<^ 


-^.^feS*-:v*- 


.  wi'lV-J 


■■} 


*'-. 


I        m    r 


> 


*%. 


J 


Master  Negative  # 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES 
PRESERVATION  DEPARTMENT 


iy-^iux-n 


DIDLIOGRAPHIC  MICROrORM  TARGET 


Original  Material  as  Filmed  -  Existing  Bibliograpliic  Record 


wimmmmanm.  -    — ^-r-«— 


[24 


Restrictions  on  Use: 


I 


LlacDonald,  GrovilXe,  1056-  1S44:# 

ExtractG  from  an  article  entitled  "ViviGOction 
and  progress;  a  statement  and  an  appeal/  pub*  ix 
the  Contemporary  review  for  June  1905,  by  Gre-  i 
villo  LlacDonuld...  printed  for  the  Vivisection 
reform  nocioty,  1906 • 

cover  title,  ^14;,  p.   23  cm  in  24^7  cm. 


Half  title. 


Volume  of  pamphlets 


V.  y 


:•■•  A^ 


TECHNICAL  MICROFORM  DATA 


FILM     SIZE:____fS^_ REDUCTION     RATIO: 

IMAGE  PLACEMENT:    lA  (fA>  IB    IIB 

DATE     FILMED: ^_4(^_£l INITIALS_iSjt_%;<A:^ 

HLMEDBY:    RESEARCH  PUBLICATIONS.  INC  WOODBRIDGE.  CT 


lU 


r 


V 


Association  for  Infoimation  and  image  {Management 

1100  Weyne  Avenue,  Suite  1100 
Silver  Spring,  Maryland  20910 

301/587-8202 


Centimeter 


8 


10       11        12       13       14       15    mm 


mi 


IlllilllllUllllllllll 


I     I 


Inches 


mJimLmh^^ 


1.0 


I.I 


1.25 


IM     2.8 

2.5 

1^ 

1^     II  3.2 

2.2 

■  6.3 

.            3.6 

1^            -iiii- 

l££        .III 

2.0 

IX 

»i     u 

Bibu 

1.8 

1.4 

1.6 

lllllllllll 


TTT 


""l""'""l"" 


II 


1 


MflNUFRCTURED   TO  fillM   STfiNDRRDS 
BY  APPLIED   IMAGE,    INC. 


d 


'.t   '  ^  -v 


f  / 


EXTRACTS 


FROM  AN  ARTICLE  ENTITLED 


(( 


VIVISECTION  AND  PROGRESS: 


A  STATEMENT  AND  AN  APPEAL," 


PUBLISHED    IN 


THE  CONTEMPORARY  REVIEW 


FOR  TUNE,   1905 


BY 


GREVJLLE  MacDONALD,  M.  D. 


PRINTED  FOR  THE 

VIVISECTION  REFORM  SOCIETY 

1906. 


THE  VIVISECTION  REFORM  SOCIETY 
has  been  incorporated  as  the  exponent  of  the  principle  which 
demands  not  the  total  abolition  of  a  scientific  method,  but  prevention 
of  the  abuses  which  pertain  to  it.  Within  certain  limitations,  and  for 
certain  definite  objects,  it  regards  such  experimentation  as  legitimate 
and  right.  Carried  on  beyond  these  bounds,  vivisection  becomes 
monstrous  and  cruel,  a  menace  to  humanity,  an  injury  to  the  cause 
of  science. 

This  Society  will  continue  to  oppose  the  atrocities  of  human 
vivisection,  which  it  has  brought  to  light,  with  the  hope  that  they 
may  some  day  be  equally  reprobated  and  condemned  by  the  entire 
medical  profession. 

The  vivisection  of  animals,  carried  on  without  legal  regulation, 
sometimes  constitutes  a  form  of  scientific  torture,  which,  in  the  words 
of  the  late  Dr.  Henry  J.  Bigelow,  of  Harvard  Medical  School,  "is 
more  terrible,  by  its  refinement  and  the  efforts  to  prolong  it,  than 
burning  at  the  stake."  We  shall  aim  to  make  this  cruelty  impossible, 
except  as  a  crime. 

To  suppress  such  abuses  as  are  admitted  to  exist,  and  to  effect 
this  without  interference  with  any  form  of  research  conducted  under 
State  supervision  and  guarded  against  abuse,  is  the  object  of  the 
Society. 

The  Vivisection  Reform  Society  appeals,  therefore,  for 
encouragement  and  support  to  all  who  have  at  heart  the  honor  and 
interest  of  scientific  advancement  and  the  prevention  of  injustice 
and  cruelty. 

The  fee  for  annual  membership  is  $2.00;  for  life  membership, 
52^.00. 


VIVISECTION   REFORM   SOCIETY 


Incorporated  in  1903,  under  the  Laws  of  the  United  States. 


/ 


PRESIDENT 


DAvin  H.  Cochran,  Ph.  D.,  LL.  D. 
I. ate  President  of  tbc  Polytechnic  Institute.  Brcokiyn,  N.  Y 


SECRETARY 

Sydney  Richmonp  Tabf.k, 

5J2  Monadnock  Block,  Chicago,  111. 


TREASURER 


Al.FPr.!i    MlI.LARD, 

V.  5.  National  Bank,  Omaha,  Neb. 


DIRECTORS 

David  H.  Cochran,  Ph.  0.,  LL.  D 

Hon.  James  M.  Brown,  Counsellor  at  Law     . 

Titus  Munson  Coan,  M.   D 

Sydney  Richmond  Tahkr,  Counsellor  at  Law 


Brooklyn,  N.  V. 

Tfiledo,  Oliio 

New  Voilv  City 

.    Chicago,  III. 


VICE-PkESIDEMTS 

Hiv  Eminence,  Cardinal  jamfs  Gifbons Baltimore,  .\I<L 

Prof.  GoldwIn  Smith,  D,  C.  L.,  LL.  D.       .       . Toronto 

Prof.  John  Bascom,  D.  D.,  f-L.  D.,  ex-Prc?idcr.t  of  Univrrsirv  ot  Wisconsin,  Williamstown,  Mass. 

Hon.  Jacob  N,  GAi.LiNrKR,   \LD.,  U.  S.  Senator Concord,  N.  H. 

Hon.  Area  N.  Watkrman,  LL.  D.,  ex-Judge  of  Illinois  Appeiiate  Couit        .       .     Chic.;go,  111. 

F:;ancis  Fisher  Browne,   Editor  of  "The  Dial'' Chicago,  111. 

Edward  H.  Clement,  Editor  of  "Evening  Transcript" Boston,  Mass. 

Henry  M.  Field,  M.  D.,   late  Eineritus  Professor  of  Therapeutics,  Dartmouth 

Medical  College * Pasadena,  Cal. 

Charles  W.    Dulles,  M.  D.,  Lecturer  on   History  of   Medicine^    University  of 

Pennsylvania Philadelphia 

Alfonso  David  Rockwell,  M.  D New  York  City 

Samuel  A.  Jones,  M.  D Ann  Arbor,  Mich. 

Rev.  Frederic  Rowland  Marvin,  M.  D Albany,  N.  Y. 

James  H.  Glass,  M.  D,,  Surgeon  of  Utica  City  Hospital Utica,  N.  Y, 

Rev.  Francis  H.  Rowley,  D.  D.,  Pastor  of  First  Baptist  Church,     .       .       ,        Boston,  Mass. 

Rev.  Levirett  W.  Spking,  D.  D.,    Professor  of  English  Literature  in  Williams 

College Williamstown,  Mass. 


VIVISECTION   REFORM   SOCIETY 


Incorporated  in  1903,  under  the  Laws  of  the  United  States. 


PRESIDENT 


David  H.  Cochran,  Ph.  D.,  LL.  D. 
Late  President  of  the  Polytechnic  Institute,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y 


SECRETARY 


TREASURER 


Sydney  Richmond  Taber, 

532  Monadnock  Block,  Chicago,  111. 


Alfred  Millard, 

U.  S.  National  Bank,  Omaha,  Neb. 


•A 


DIRECTORS 

David  H.  Cochran,  Ph.  D.,  LL.  D Brooklyn,  N.  Y. 

Hon.  James  M.  Brown,  Counsellor  at  Law Toledo    Ohio 

Titus  Munson  Coan,  M.  D New  York  City 

Sydney  Richmond  Tabir,  Counsellor  at  Law Chicago,  111. 

VICE-PRESIDENTS 

His  Eminence,  Cardinal  Jamks  Gibbons Baltimore    Md. 

Prof.  Goldwin  Smith,  D.  C.  L.,  LL.  D Toronto 

Prof.  John  Bascom,  D.  D.,  LL.  D.,  ex- President  of  University  of  Wisconsin,Williamstown,  Mass. 

Hon.  Jacob  N.  Gallinger,  M.  D.,  U.  S.  Senator .     Concord,  N.  H. 

Hon.  Arba  N.  Waterman,  LL.  D.,  ex-Judge  of  Illinois  Appellate  Court  .     Chicago,  111. 

Francis  Fisher  Browne,  Editor  of  **The  Dial" Chicago,  111. 

Edward  H.  Clement,  Editor  of  * 'Evening  Transcript" Boston,  Mass. 

Henry  M.  Field,  M.  D.,  late  Emeritus  Professor  of  Therapeutics,  Dartmouth 

Medical  College Pasadena,  Cal. 

Charles  W.   Dulles,  M,  D.,  Lecturer  on  History  of  Medicine,  University  of 

Pennsylvania Philadelphia 

Alfonso  David  Rockwell,  M.  D New  York  City 

Samuel  A.  Jones,  M.  D Ann  Arbor,  Mich. 

Rev.  Frederic  Rowland  Marvin,  M.  D Albany,  N.  Y. 

James  H.  Glass,  M.  D.,  Surgeon  of  Utica  City  Hospital Utica,  N.  Y. 

Rev.  Francis  H.  Rowley,  D.  D.,  Pastor  of  First  Baptist  Church,     ,      .      .        Boston,  Mass. 

Rev.  Lkvkrett  W.  Spring,  D.  D.,   Professor  of  English  Literature  in  Williams 

College Williamstown,  Mass. 


NOTE. 

In  the  Contemporary  Review  (London),  for  June,  1905,  appeared 
an  article  on  the  subject  of  Vivisection  which  especially  deserves 
consideration.  The  writer.  Dr.  Greville  Mac  Donald,  is  an  eminent 
London  physician,  and  his  paper  seems  to  present  the  subject  in  its 
opposing  aspects  with  especial  clearness.  The  essay  is  a  long  one 
and  only  a  portion  is  here  presented.  The  Vivisection  Reform  Society 
does  not,  by  publishing  this  portion,  endorse  every  sentence,  but  it 
heartily  approves  of  the  admirable  spirit  which   pervades  the  article, 


532  Monadnock  Block,  Chicago, 
July,    1906. 


S.  R.  Taber, 

Stcretary. 


VIVISECTION  AND  PROGRESS 


The  question  of  vivisection  concerns  our  welfare  and  progress, 
our  individual  rights  and  national  honor,  more  nearly  than  the  man 
of  moderate  mind  supposes.     *     *     * 

I  believe  that  any  mentally  well-balanced  man,  looking  into  a 
physiological  laboratory,  would  turn  sick  at  the  sights  revealed, 
even  though  he  knew  the  animal  under  experiment  was  deeply 
chloroformed  or  brainless.  And  when  I  specify  a  mentally  well- 
balanced  person,  I  do  not  mean  one  who  looks  upon  his  natural  feel- 
ings as  untrustworthy,  any  more  than  I  mean  one  who  regards  the 
facts  of  science  as  fraudulent  because  he  does  not  like  them.  I 
believe  still  more  strongly  that  the  moderate  anti-vivisectionist  has 
much  excuse  for  becoming  immoderate;  I  even  excuse  his  gross 
exaggerations  when  he  is  faced  by  the  untruthfulness,  stupidity 
and  recklessness  of  suffering  evinced  by  many  who  rank  high  in 
physiological  science;  and  I  even  sympathise  with  his  use  of  brick- 
bats when  he  realises  the  hopelessness  of  his  task,  opposed  as  he  is 
by  the  grim  weight  of  authority,  supported  by  popular  apathy. 

Thus  both  sides  become  untruthful  and  both  angry.  The  mod- 
erate man  sees  something  of  this,  stands  aside,  and  backs  the  winner. 
His  sympathies  stand  largely  with  the  poor  animals  as  long  as  he 
and  his  children  are  healthy  and  enjoy  the  companionship  of  their 
four-footed  friends;  but  his  feelings  wax  greedy  for  the  gifts  of 
science  when  his  little  ones  are  down  with  diphtheria,  or  himself  is 
hopelessly  fighting  a  cancer. 

It  is  because  of  the  difficulties  with  which  the  public  are  beset  that 
I  am  constrained  to  put  the  truth  before  them,  impartially,  as  far  as 
possible,  and  imbued,  I  hope,  with  a  full  sense  of  my  responsibility 
in  so  doing.  The  task  is  not  easy,  because  I  have  arrayed  in  oppo- 
sition to  me  three  classes,  all  prepared  to  withstand  the  world  in 
defence  of  their  positions. 

The  first  class  holds  the  physiologists.  They  say  that  knowledge 
is  the  outcome  of  experiment;  that  it  is  only  by  the  knowledge  of 
nature  that  we  can  find  the  laws  of  disease;  therefore,  that  if  we 
would  know  the  laws  of  disease,  we  must  experiment  on  the  living 
animal,  and  infect  it  with  disease. 

The  second  class  comprises  those  who  maintain  that  no  perpetra- 
tion of  evil  can  ever  bring  good ;  that  the  perpetration  of  cruelty  is 
evil;  therefore  that  vivisection  can  bring  no  real,  lasting  good. 
Indeed,  they  go  further,  and  assert  that  it  has  done  no  good. 

The  third  class  includes  most  of  the  public.  They  are  indifferent. 
They  hold  that  such  questions  are  for  the  expert  alone;  that  the 


public  can  never  be  expert;  therefore,  that  they  must  leave  the 
scientific  to  their  own  ways,  and  give  them  all  they  demand. 

It  is  my  intention  to  review  especially,  though  in  brief,  the  claims 
of  the  first  two  classes,  and,  having  done  so,  to  make  appeals  to  all 
three.  But  I  must,  in  the  first  place,  deny  the  claim  of  the  indiffer- 
ent, that  the  public,  because  they  can  never  be  experts,  are  incom- 
petent to  judge  upon  this  matter.  On  the  contrary,  I  believe  that 
not  only  is  the  layman  competent  to  judge,  but  is  bound  to  do  so. 
In  other  words,  the  question  is  one  that  the  State  must  decide. 
The  whole  principle  of  democracy  is  involved  in  the  belief  that  the 
people  who  are  concerned  in  any  question  are  most  competent  to 
decide  upon  it.  Yet,  though  in  so  believing  they  assert  their  right 
to  repudiate  the  assumed  infallibility  of  authority,  they  dare  not 
pretend  to  legislate  without  honest  examination  of  the  evidence 
brought  before  them  by  the  agents  of  authority.  It  is  true  that  the 
people  can  scarcely  understand  the  facts  until  explained  by  those 
who  have  studied  them ;  but  the  intelligent  lay  mind  can  always 
grasp  the  principles  or  laws  deduced  from  those  facts,  and  judge 
of  their  value.  Thus  the  advantages  and  dangers  of  vivisection 
can  be  arrayed  in  intelligible  order  only  by  one  who  understands  the 
subject.  But  the  public,  having  heard  the  evidence,  must  decide 
whether  or  no  the  State  shall  more  willingly  sanction  cruelty  in  the 
secret  laboratory  than  in  the  highway.  It  is  indeed  because  of 
these  secret  places,  to  which  the  public  can  gain  no  access,  that 
many  exaggerate  the  horrors  of  physiology  and  tear  their  right 
passion  to  tatters,  instead  of  thrice  arming  it  with  justice  and  truth- 
fulness. 

The  best  method  of  enabling  the  reader  to  judge  between  the 
physiologist  and  his  opponent  will  be  to  put  before  him  a  few  of 
the  more  important  facts. 

I. — The  Case  for  the  Physiologist. 

It  is  beyond  all  dispute  that  Harvey,  who  is  generally  credited 
with  the  discovery  of  the  circulation  of  the  blood,  substantiated  the 
inferences  of  older  observers  by  vivisections.  Nor  is  it  to  be  dis- 
puted that  every  discovery  that  has  advanced  medical  science  can  be 
traced  back  to  its  elemental  parentage  in  this  first  great  step  out 
of  the  dungeons  of  necromancy  into  the  light  of  science.  It  is  almost 
impossible  for  us  now  to  realise  what  difficulties  of  prejudice  and 
ignorance  lay  in  Harvey's  way.  The  m.echanism  of  the  valves  in  the 
heart  and  the  veins,  which  valves  could  allow  the  blood  to  flow  only 
in  one  direction,  in  itself  seems  sufficient  proof  of  the  course  of  the 
blood.  Yet  we  must  not  only  credit  Harvey  with  this  discovery, 
but  also  accept  his  statement  that  it  came  to  him  through  frequent 


and  patient  experiments  on  the  living  animal .  It  is  not  to  the  point 
to  argue  that  this  circulation  was  not  actually  demonstrated  until 
forty  or  fifty  years  later  by  Malpighi,  who,  by  placing  the  lung  of  a 
living  frog  under  the  new  two-lensed  microscope,  demonstrated  the 
passage  of  the  blood  from  the  arteries  into  the  many  branched 
capillary  vessels,  and  from  these  again  into  the  smallest  veins. 
The  anti-vivisectionist  argues  that  this  fact  is  as  readily  seen  in  the 
web  of  the  frog's  foot  without  any  vivisection  whatever,  and  that 
it  had  been  correctly  assumed  by  Coesalpinus,  a  half-century  before 
Harvey.  These  points  must  be  granted.  Nevertheless,  we  cannot 
deny  that  Harvey's  experiment  first  proved  the  fundamental  prin- 
ciple of  physiology  and  medicine. 

Again,  to  use  another  instance,  it  is  simple  fact  that  John  Hunter, 
greatest  of  all  history's  surgeons,  through  vivisection  put  on  a 
scientific  basis  the  cure  of  aneurism  by  tying  the  artery.  We  must 
even  admit  that  mere  scientific  curiosity,  and  not  even  the  desire  for 
establishing  an  hypothesis  or  finding  a  cure  for  something,  sug- 
gested an  experiment  that  ultimately  proved  a  boon  to  humanity. 
The  story  runs  thus :  Judging,  from  the  heat  and  rapid  growth  of 
the  young  buck's  antlers,  that  the  blood  supply  must  be  exceptionally 
rich,  he  was  curious  to  ascertain  whether  its  growth  could  be 
checked  by  tying  the  artery  from  which  the  antler  draws  its  blood 
supply.  The  buck  was  thrown,  and  the  artery  tied  by  an  operation 
involving  but  little  pain,  the  immediate  result  being  the  cooling  of 
the  antler  and  arrest  of  its  pulsation.  A  week  later  he  examined 
the  same  animal,  and  found  to  his  amazement  that  heat  and  pulsa- 
tion were  fully  restored.  He  killed  the  creature,  thinking  that  the 
tying  might  not  have  been  secure;  and,  upon  ascertaining  that  no 
fault  could  be  found  with  the  operation,  he  made  this  amazing  dis- 
covery: that  minute  arteries  given  off  from  the  artery  on  the  near 
side  of  the  ligature,  which  intercommunicate  with  similar  small 
vessels  ramifying  from  the  same  artery  beyond  the  ligature,  had 
become  so  much  enlarged  that  the  blood  supply  to  the  antler  was 
fully  maintained.  From  this  he  inferred  that  when  the  main  artery 
of  the  leg  becomes  distended  into  an  aneurism,  as  sometimes  happens 
behind  the  knee,  he  might  safely  tie  the  artery,  where  it  is  accessible 
in  the  thigh,  and  cure  the  dangerous  malady.  It  has  been  disputed 
whether  Hunter  should  be  credited  with  the  honour  of  this  discov- 
ery. But  the  evicience  is  overwhelming  that  he  established  its  reason, 
if  not  actually  its  practice,  and  thus  brought  it  into  the  precincts 
of  scientific  surgery. 

One  might  give  many  instances  of  discoveries  that  have  resulted 
from  vivisection,  though  to  most  of  them  a  more  or  less  plausible 
contradiction  is  brought.    The  innumerable  experiments  made  upon 


the  brain  and  spinal  cord,  to  ascertain  the  locality  and  co-ordination 
of  functions,  give  unequivocal  evidence  in  favour  of  such  experi- 
ments. Nevertheless,  no  student  of  the  subject  can  deny  that  Sir 
Charles  Bell  and  Charcot  by  the  study  of  disease  have  taught  us 
infinitely  more  of  nerve  functions  than  has  the  more  modern  physi- 
ologist, however  skilfully  he  may  have  devised  experiments  to  verify 
their  discoveries.     *     *     * 

II. — The  Case  for  the  Anti-Vivisectionist. 

The  case  for  the  anti-vivisectionist  is  necessarily  harder  to  justify 
in  terms  that  shall  be  logically  satisfactory,  just  because  he  depends 
upon  sentiment  rather  than  upon  reason.  The  inevitable  tendency 
of  all  education  is  to  favour  the  development  of  the  intellectual  rather 
than  the  emotional  functions,  because  the  emotions,  when  undisci- 
plined by  reason,  are  so  often  untrustworthy.  Nevertheless  it  does 
not  occur  to  many  who  most  loudly  acclaim  the  supremacy  of  reason, 
that  even  reason  becomes  distorted  unless  inspired  by  those  emotions 
which  are  more  surely  part  of  our  nature  than  the  artifices  of  our 
scholastic  education.  Nor  must  the  scientific  think  the  emotions  are 
to  be  discredited  because  they  find  their  chief  support  in  the  apostles 
of  poetry  and  art.  These  are  needed  in  this  day,  more  than  ever 
perhaps  in  the  world's  history,  because  our  material  progress,  boast- 
ful and  shameless,  seems  to  endorse  the  fashionable  contempt  of  the 
simple  virtues.  I  would  even  more  strongly  justify  the  fine  spirit 
of  the  anti-vivisectionists,  though  many  of  their  methods  seem  to 
discredit  their  fervour.  But,  notwithstanding  the  lack  of  logic  in 
feeling,  there  comes  a  point  in  which  most  physiologists  overcome 
their  disparagement  of  sentiment.  They  argue  that  the  capacity 
for  suffering  stands  in  direct  relation  to  the  intellectual  develop- 
ment of  the  individual,  and  that,  just  as  our  more  obtuse  patients 
do  not  suffer  as  acutely  as  the  better  educated,  so  the  dog,  having 
lower  intelligence,  must  be  less  sensitive  to  pain  than  a  human  being. 
And  from  this  the  physiologist  argues  that  it  is  absurd  for  the  anti- 
vivisectionists  to  gauge  the  feelings  of  a  dog  by  their  own.  But 
we  have  only  to  carry  such  a  line  of  argument  to  its  logical  conclu- 
sions to  be  brought  face  to  face  with  the  extraordinary  phenomenon 
of  a  physiologist  being  guided  by  his  feelings.  For  most  will  main- 
tain that  a  highly  educated  dog,  one  who  loves  his  master  so  well 
that  he  will  risk  his  own  life  to  save  him,  or  die  of  grief  on  his 
grave,  must  be  more  highly  developed,  both  in  mind  and  in  feeling, 
than  the  human  infant.  The  latter,  as  every  doctor  knows,  has  but 
small  capacity  for  pain,  and  will  wail  as  piteously  for  its  mother  as 
it  does  when  suffering  from  the  wind,  or  during  a  surgical  opera- 
tion.   Yet  even  the  physiologist  will  allow  his  sentiment  to  interfere 


between  science  and  the  vivisection  of  a  baby;  even  though  such 
baby  be  a  pauper  orphan,  and  riddled,  perhaps,  with  disease.  This 
granted,  I  ask  of  the  physiologist  to  show  me  by  what  law  he  justi- 
fies his  own  sentiment  while  he  despises  the  sentiment  of  that  man 
who  would  stand  between  the  needs  of  science  and  the  suffering  of 
a  dog. 

Although  I  believe  that  every  English  physiologist  would  stop 
short  of  human  experiment,  yet  it  is  beyond  all  dispute  that  in  some 
Continental  hospitals  such  practices  are  tacitly  sanctioned.  I  can 
give  chapter  and  verse  for  that  accusation.  And  I  know  from  my 
own  personal  observation  that  the  treatment  of  hospital  patients  in 
Vienna,  where  the  physiological  laboratories  are  possibly  the  most 
cruel  on  earth,  horrifies  the  right-minded  English  student.*  I  think 
such  facts  lend  very  great  weight  to  one  most  important  claim  of  the 
anti-vivisectionists,  namely,  that  familiarity  with  vivisection  must 
have  a  demoralising  effect  upon  the  students,  as  well  as  upon  the 
vivisectors  themselves.  And,  if  this  be  conceded,  the  suspicion  of 
the  anti-vivisectionists  that  animals  while  undergoing  operation  are 
often  not  properly  anaesthetised  has  much  excuse.  The  unfortunate 
animals  are  so  rigidly  bound,  gagged  and  maimed,  that  it  perhaps 
matters  little  to  the  success  of  the  experiment  whether  or  no  they 
are  unconscious.  It  is,  I  m.ost  reluctantly  admit,  almost  impossible 
to  get  evidence  upon  such  points,  and  for  the  reason  that  the  things 
which  zve  fear  are  practised  in  secret  places.  Nevertheless,  it  is 
just  because  of  this  secrecy  that  the  public  have  a  right  to  make 
trouble.  But  for  John  Howard's  crusade  against  the  horrors  of 
the  prisons,  the  public  had  never  known  the  truth,  their  infamies 
had  never  been  remedied;  and  the  public  have  now  as  much  right 
to  question  the  physiologist's  repudiations  as  they  had  then  to  doubt 
the  denials  of  the  gaolers.  The  evidence  is  sufficient  to  justify,  in 
my  own  mind,  a  large  measure  of  sympathy  with  the  anti-vivisec- 
tionists, though  I  am  not  of  them.  And  I  agree  with  them  in  their 
demand  for  legislation,  on  at  least  four  points.  The  first  is,  that 
vivisection  ought  to  be  prohibited  for  purposes  of  teaching,  because 
it  is  often  misleading,  and  always  demoralising.  The  second  is  that 
the  inspection  of  the  physiological  laboratories  should  be  carried  out 
more  systematically  and  always  unexpectedly,  and  that  the  inspectors 
should  be  largely  increased  in  number.  Thirdly,  I  would  prohibit 
all  dissections,  with  or  without  anaesthetics,  upon  live  horses  and 
dogs.  Fourthly,  I  would  make  the  administration  of  curara,  for 
purposes  of  experiments,  a  criminal  act.  The  existing  law  forbids 
its  use  in  place  of  an  anaesthetic ;  but  the  fact  that  an  animal,  when 
under  its  influence,  though  capable  of  feeling,  is  incapable  of  ex- 

*NoTE   BY    Compiler.— On   this   point  see  "Illustrations  of  Human  Vivisection,"  published  by  the 
Vivisection  Reform  Society,  price  ten  cents,  postpaid. 


y 


pressing  its  suffering  in  any  way,  makes  it  difficult  to  determine 
whether  or  no  the  subject  is  really  insensitive,  even  when  chloroform 
is  administered. 

These  would  comprise  the  limits  of  what  is  possible  or  wise  in 
amending  the  existing  law.  No  Act  of  Parliament  can  eradicate  the 
spirit  that  makes  cruelty  possible.  Legislation  necessarily  has  in 
view  the  protection  of  the  weak  from  the  strong,  the  peaceable  from 
the  greedy,  rather  than  the  reform  of  the  wicked.  To  prohibit  vivi- 
section altogether  would  be  to  invite  its  performance  in  such  secrecy 
as  no  system  of  espionage  could  unearth.  Legislation  can  seldom  do 
more  than  compromise,  because  it  cannot  essay  the  impossible.  It 
cannot  make  all  men  equal.  It  cannot  give  liberty.  It  cannot  even 
hasten  fraternity.  And  if  it  has  to  be  content  with  putting  all  pos- 
sible hindrance  in  the  way  of  dnmkenness,  prostitution  and  cruelty, 
it  must  not  be  charged  with  sanctioning  them. 

III. — The  Appeal. 

And  now  I  come  to  my  appeal,  which  must  deal  with  the  three 
classes :  the  physiologists  themselves,  the  anti-vivisectionists,  and  the 
indifferent  public. 

For  the  first  of  these  I  have  but  few  words,  for  their  claim  that 
out  of  the  multitude  of  their  unprofitable  experiments  more  discov- 
eries may  yet  come  must  be  granted.  John  Hunter,  as  we  have  seen, 
learned  a  most  valuable  fact  through  an  experiment  that  was  not 
prompted  by  the  wish  to  benefit  humanity.  Yet,  notwithstanding 
the  success  of  his  vivisections,  he  laid  it  down  as  a  rule  that  no 
experiment  that  had  once  established  a  fact  should  be  repeated. 
Perhaps  he  might  think  differently  in  these  days  of  anaesthetics, 
though  I  doubt  if  he  would  forgive  the  time  spent  on  an  elaborate 
dissection  to  instruct  students  in  a  physiological  law  they  had  never 
disputed.  I  suspect,  moreover,  that  Hunter  would  have  felt  there 
was  some  danger  of  lowering  the  students'  conception  of  the  sanc- 
tity of  life  and  wonder  of  physiological  law  by  the  gruesome  display 
of  a  sentient  animal's  entrails,  especially  if  he  had  to  admit  that  the 
profit  was  problematical. 

But  my  appeal  has  a  more  practical  side,  and  one  that  seems  to 
me  of  utmost  importance  in  the  interests  of  the  public,  for  whose 
benefit,  the  physiologists  so  constantly  tell  us,  their  experiments  are 
chiefly  made. 

The  physiologist  is  never  a  practitioner  of  medicine,  and  has  no 
close  knowledge  of  the  doctor's  honoured  place  in  the  community. 
He  perhaps  hardly  realises  how  almost  every  family  in  the  kingdom 
is  beset  with  tragedies,  real  or  imaginary,  great  or  small,  yet  trage- 
dies, and  in  how  many  of  them  the  doctor  is  the  first  looked  to  for 


r 


succour;  and  this  not  only  in  matters  of  medicine.  The  physiolo- 
gist does  not  know  how  deep  is  the  popular  horror  of  his  practises, 
and  how  they  are  tacitly  accepted  only  because  of  the  people's  trust 
in  the  profession.  They  know  how  ignorant  they  are  of  their 
maladies.  They  must  either  accept  our  treatment  or  find  comfort 
in  their  ignorance;  and  if  they  too  readily  accept  the  statement  of 
the  physiologist  that  experiments  must  be  made  on  the  living  animal, 
though  they  hate  them,  they  cannot  be  much  blamed.  Neverthe- 
less, in  the  minds  of  many  there  is  rising  a  grim  distrust  of  the 
doctors ;  while  among  the  poor,  chiefly,  I  do  not  doubt,  because  of 
the  horrors  related  by  the  anti-vivisectionists,  a  real  fear  of  the 
hospitals  threatens  to  over-ride  the  sufferers'  needs.  And  this  dis- 
trust and  fear  are,  I  think,  a  real  danger:  they  may,  indeed,  be 
responsible  for  the  growing  apprehension  of  disease  that  saps  our 
mental  vigour  and  makes  us  wild  in  the  hunt  for  quack  or  legitimate 
remedies. 

So  that  I  would  ask  the  physiologist  not  to  disparage  the  senti- 
ments of  the  people,  partly  for  the  sake  of  the  public  sanity,  partly 
for  the  sake  of  the  authority  that  doctors  wield.  In  teaching  physi- 
ology I  would  beg  him  not  to  forget  the  plastic  minds  of  the  boys  and 
girls  whom  he  teaches,  nor  to  miss  opportunity  of  making  them 
realise  in  practice,  no  less  than  in  theory,  the  purpose  of  their 
future — namely,  the  relief  of  pain.  I  believe  that  familiarity  with 
forms  of  suffering,  that  not  only  cannot  be  eased  but  are  actually 
inflicted  for  purposes  of  teaching,  must,  even  when  an  animal  is 
brainless  or  deeply  narcotised,  produce  some  lowering  of  the  stu- 
dent's sense  of  his  obligations. 

It  is,  moreover,  a  question  how  far  the  teaching  of  physiology  is 
helped  by  living  dissections.  The  vivisection  of  an  animal  can 
scarcely  be  styled  an  observation  of  nature ;  and  the  experiment'  for 
instance,  often  employed  to  show  that  the  secreting  power  of  the 
salivary  glands  is  independent  of  the  blood  pressure,  is  easily  proved 
as  a  vital  principle,  without  even  the  destruction  of  an  animal.  Nor 
is  it  necessary,  after  having  established  a  biliary  fistula  for  measur- 
ing the  secretion  of  bile,  to  punish  the  dog  unrighteously  and  leave 
him  alone  in  his  mental  misery  for  hours,  in  order  to  prove  that  grief 
will  check  the  flow  of  digestive  juices.  What  a  pretty  experiment! 
What  a  noble  use  of  the  emotion  of  sorrow  as  a  scientific  weapon  for 
discovering  the  mysteries  of  life !  Does  not  every  wife  and  mother 
know  how  grief  spoils  digestion,  without  using  as  an  instrument  of 
precision  the  chief  means  of  higher  education  to  a  dog,  of  salvation 
to  a  man  ?  The  student  can  never  grasp  vital  processes  by  vivisec- 
tions as  he  would  physical  laws  by  chemical  and  mechanical  experi- 
ments; not  even  with  all  our  scientific  makeshifts  for  compelling  an 


outraged  life  to  remain  in  a  dismembered  body.  But  he  can  dissect 
the  dead  body ;  he  can  understand  chemistry,  as  matter  of  experi- 
ment and  proof;  he  can  master  the  laws  of  physics.  And  he  will 
grasp  the  laws  of  life,  I  think,  better  by  studying  the  nature  of  man 
than  by  dissecting  the  living  dog.  All  experiments  on  the  living  ani- 
mal tend  to  mechanicalise  the  conception  of  vital  energy,  while  true 
teaching  will  ever  idealise  life  as  the  master  of  its  own  chemical 
changes  and  mechanical  powers.  In  one  word,  I  would  ask  the 
physiologist  whether,  considering  the  future  of  his  pupils,  it  would 
not  be  better  to  discontinue  teaching  by  demonstrations  on  living 
animals.  And,  when  he  remembers  how  many  of  his  experiments 
fail  altogether  to  prove  the  very  points  for  which  the  dog  is  sacri- 
ficed and  often  tortured,  he  cannot  deny  our  right  to  question  the 
need  of  them. 

Next  comes  my  appeal  to  the  anti-vivisectionists.    I  have  already 
asserted  my  belief  in  the  right  of  the  public  to  decide  upon  all  points 
of  national  importance,  and  that  I  hold  vivisection  to  be  one  of 
them.    The  cause  of  the  anti-vivisectionist  is  so  good  that  I  believe 
it  will  prevail  when  at  last  we  understand  that  true  progress  of  the 
human    race   depends  more   upon   its  humanity  than  upon   speed, 
money  and  technical  education.     But,  though  this  understanding  be 
as  yet  far  from  attainment,  I  am  sure  that  the  tactics  of  the  anti- 
vivisection   societies   are  doing  harm  to  their  cause.     They   fight 
with  any  weapons  they  can  lay  hands  on:  soft-nosed  bullets  and 
Greek  fire,  as  well  as  weapons  of  fine  steel.    Whereas  if  they  would 
use  the  peaceful  measures  of  truth,  and  shun,  because  hurtful  to 
their  cause,  all  things  that  are  not  true,  they  would  enlist  on  their 
side  numbers  of  m.en  and  women,  doctors  and  scientists,  parsons  and 
teachers,  who  now  stand  on  one  side,  and,  because  both  sides  are 
wrong,  let  them  fight  it  out  between  them.     I  know  well  the  help- 
lessness of  the  anti-vivisectionist,  the  impossibility  of  his  getting 
information  first  hand ;  I  know  well  the  irritation  of  the  gibes  with 
which  he  is  baffled  by  his  opponents.     *     *     * 

And  now  I  come  to  the  third  class :  the  indifferent.  It  numbers 
m.any  who  consider  themselves  tender-hearted,  yet  whose  tender- 
heartedness is  comprised  in  a  dislike  to  being  hurt.  It  numbers  the 
lazy,  the  comfortable,  and  those  whose  courage  is  sapped  by  the  fear 
of  disease.  It  numbers,  too,  without  doubt,  all  those  who  uphold 
the  doctrine  of  the  survival  of  the  fittest,  because  they  themselves 
have  survived. 

^  The  indifferent  shelve  the  question  of  experiments  on  animals 
either  because  they  think  that  the  lower  animals  are  given  into  our 
hands  for  our  uses,  or  because  they  look  upon  man's  might  as  his 
right.  The  former,  for  the  most  part,  will  call  themselves  Christians, 


and  the  latter  will  justify  their  point  of  view  because  they  think  it  is 
scientific.  And,  because  I  would  have  all  understand  that  vivisection 
is  a  matter  of  national  honour,  and  therefore  of  patriotism  and 
progress,  I  must  tell  them  some  home  truths. 

The  scientific  indifferent  I  take  first.    The  so-called  law  of  survival 
of  the  fittest  does  not  summarise  the  law  of  evolution,  unless  we 
accept  it  in  the  sense  that  he  lives  most  fitly  who  loves  most  truly, 
who  knows  that  the  greatest  privilege  his  strength  has  won  for  him 
is  its  power  of  helping  the  weak.    To  take  the  law  of  survival  of  the 
fittest  in  a  lower  sense  is  to  prophesy  an  ultimate  condition  of  so- 
ciety that  will  inevitably  compass  the  annihilation  of  those  very 
attributes  which,  by  common  consent  of  the  human  race,  have  been 
accounted  its  essentials ;  or  we  had  never  signified  such  big  ideas  in 
that  honoured  word  humanity.     Our  humanity  comprises  not  only 
that  tenderness  of  heart  which  is  charity,  but  the  relinquishment  of 
the  winnings  of  strength  for  the  strengthening  of  weakness ;  and  if 
the  survival  of  the  fittest  in  grosser  sense  is  to  be  the  final  outcome 
of  our  evolution,  our  hum.anity  must  slink  away  and  hide  ashamed 
in  the  secret  hearts  of  the  unfit.    Then  all  things  that  advance  the 
triumph  of  man  over  man,  and  man  over  beast,  may  be  trumpeted 
abroad  as  the  orthodoxies  of  science.    Then  the  ways  of  the  crafty, 
the  logic  of  the  pickpockets,  the  creeds  of  the  mighty  that  sit  upon 
seats,  may  be  acclaimed  as  justification  of  the  great  law  that  the 
vulgarly  fit  shall  survive,  that  the  meek  shall  not  inherit  the  earth.7 
It  is  only  in  such  belief,  I  say,  that  our  assumed  right  to  use  beasts 
lower  than  ourselves  for  draught,  for  pleasure,  for  food,  can  be 
interpreted  into  a  right  to  experiment  upon  their  living  bodies  in 
wanton  contempt  of  Nature's  secret  depths.     But  this  dogma  ofj 
survival  is  not  scientific,  because  it  is  not  based  upon  an  understand- 
ing of  all  the  facts.    For  he  who  limits  his  study  of  evolution  to  the 
dead  bones  of  the  museum  or  to  the  living  wonders  of  the  embryo, 
will  never  know  the  meaning  of  evolution.     So  long  as  he  ignores 
the  finer  attributes  of  the  highest  outcome  of  evolution,  Man,  he 
cannot  be  either  scientist  or  prophet.  The  greater  scientist,  I  affirm, 
may  yet  come  to  believe  that  the  progress  of  the  race  can  in  no  way 
be  advanced  by  the  perpetration  of  that  most  unscientific,  that  most 
retrogressive  crime  against  the  law  of  higher  evolution,  crueltyr)— ' 
I  pray  him  who  thinks  his  apathy  on  the  subject  of  vivisection  is 
justified  by  science,  to  be  truer  to  his  science  and  less  sure  of  the 
infallibility  of  its  set  precepts.     And  I  pray  him  ask  whether  the 
concentration  of  our  hope  upon  the  physiological  laboratories  may     / 
not  endanger  that  largeness  of  mind  which  has  ever  been  the  char- 
acteristic of  such  men  as  Newton,  Hunter,  Darwin  and  Lister. 

Now  I  come  to  my  last  words.    And  I  would  they  could  pierce  the 


y 


petrifying  minds  of  those  who,  while  considering  themselves  re- 
ligious, are  so  comfortably  indifferent  to  the  suffering  of  the  world 
in  which  they  live.  If  they  call  themselves  Christians,  is  it  too  much 
to  pray  them  accept  their  faith  as  literal  truth;  so  literal,  indeed, 
that  no  point  in  its  teaching  can  be  denied  without  disaster  to  the 
whole?  I  would  beg  them,  for  the  sake  of  consistency,  remember 
the  two  cheap  sparrows,  and  that  one  of  them  could  not  fall  on  the 
ground  without  the  fact  being  known  to  the  eternal  Justice.  It 
cannot  be  other  than  an  article  of  their  faith  that  the  love  of  God 
is  essential  in  the  life  of  the  lower  animals ;  science  will  never  show 
that  it  is  not.  They  cannot  forget  that  kindness  done  to  the  least  is 
divine  service  rendered;  nor  can  they  shut  out  the  correlative  fact 
that  he  who  offends  one  of  the  least  is  following  Iscariot  with  torch 
and  stave  to  the  great  betrayal.  These  are  but  points  in  the 
Christian's  creed  that  are  often  forgotten. 

The  hope  of  the  future,  the  possibility  of  progress,  are  bound  up 
in  the  understanding  that  increase  of  wisdom  will  arise  and  build 
strength  upon  no  other  foundation  than  our  inheritance  of  humanity. 
The  cruelty  of  fashion  in  feathers  and  furs,  the  barbarities  of  sport 
in  grouse-drives  and  pigeon-shooting,  the  inhumanities  of  trade  in 
slaughter-house  and  poultry  cramming,  cannot  be  separated  in  their 
influence  upon  the  race  from  the  barbarities  that  sometimes,  if  they 
do  not  commonly,  figure  in  the  physiological  laboratories.  Excuse 
is  found  for  all.  The  need  of  warmth  and  artistic  adornment  seem 
to  exonerate  the  woman  of  fashion ;  the  need  of  food  and  healthy 
exercise  appear  to  justify  the  healthier  male;  the  hunger  of  the 
multitude  may  make  difficult  mercifulness  in  slaughtering  oxen ;  and 
the  needs  of  science  may  seem  to  support  the  physiological  labora- 
tories. Yet  one  and  all  fall  under  condemnation  of  the  sane  and 
pitiful,  who  believe  that  the  progress  of  man  can  advance  only 
through  the  strengthening  of  his  nobility. 

It  cannot  be  disputed  that  great  discoveries  have  come  from,  cut- 
ting into  live  animals.  Nor  can  it  be  doubted  that  again  and  again, 
in  the  history  of  nations  and  the  story  of  individual  lives,  great  good 
has  ultimately  come,  notwithstanding  the  wrong  means  that  seem 
to  have  brought  it.  Yet,  though  good  so  often  comes  out  of,  or  in 
spite  of,  evil,  we  dare  not  argue  that  evil  is  justified  by  a  hope  that 
good  may  come  out  of  it.  Neither  scientist  nor  Christian  will  dare 
support  such  a  doctrine.  Though  food  is  indeed  got  by  cruelty  to 
Strasburg  geese,  none  can  justify  the  practice ;  though  Hunter  got 
knowledge  from  dissecting  the  buck,  we  need  not  endorse  some  ways 
of  the  physiologists.  Even  if  we  grant  in  large  measure  the  truth 
of  their  claims,  we  may  rather  forego  their  gifts  than  endanger  the 
humanity  of  our  race.  Even  the  cure  of  disease  is  not  the  first  point 
in  the  health  of  the  people ;  and  the  nicer  knowledge  of  physiological 
laws  will  not  contribute  much  to  our  sanity. 


FORM   OF  BEQUEST 


I  hereby  give  and  bequeath  the  sum  of. 


.Dollars 


to  the  VIVISECTION  REFORM  SOCIETY,  a  corporation 
organized  and  existing  under  the  laws  of  the  United  States,  for  its 
corporate  uses  and  purposes. 


